The Irony of Selective Epidemiology

Devotees of are probably very familiar with the scientific limitations of epidemiology Epidemiology is statistics–not science. In the distant past, epidemiology was somewhat useful in identifying causative factors for a number of infectious diseases. However, attempts to extend the application of epidemiological techniques to the ubiquitous degenerative diseases such as atherosclerosis and cancer have been abject failures.


But there is one modern disease that seemed to be tailor-made for epidemiological investigation. In the 1980s previously healthy young and middle-aged homosexual men began coming down with a mysterious illness and dying in large numbers. The illness was characterized by a complex of opportunistic infectious diseases that are normally found in people with compromised immune systems. It was labeled Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome and abbreviated AIDS. As the number of cases multiplied, it soon became apparent that the disease was almost entirely confined to a very small slice of the population–namely homosexual men who engaged in promiscuous sex and some intravenous drug users. A small number of people were also thought to have contracted the disease from blood transfusions. But mostly it was epidemic in urban settings where large numbers of homosexual men lived and engaged in increasingly promiscuous sexual activity in bath houses and other places that had rarely existed prior to the widespread “coming out of the closet” by large numbers of people in the homosexual communities of many major cities.  Critics of these sorts of activities were dismissed as homophobes and told that these practices were just part of an “alternative life style”.


So here we had a disorder that was highly correlated with specific life style factors and thus, seemingly made to order for epidemiological investigation. But it was not to be. In what seemed to be an increasingly common trend in the latter part of the 20th century, political correctness trumped science. People were told that the cause was a specific virus named HIV and that the disease would eventually cross over to the general population in epidemic fashion. Condoms were promoted as vitally important in order to restrict the spread of the disease and, in short order, we were treated to the spectacle of young children in the public schools being trained to place condoms on cucumbers or other fruits or vegetables as part of their regular curriculum. Those who hypothesized that lifestyle factors figured prominently in the causation of this disease were ridiculed and smeared as homophobes and heretics. Thus, in one of the greatest ironies in medical history, the same people who tried to tie cancers and heart disease to risk factors related to lifestyle refused to apply the same analysis in the investigation of AIDS.


Of course none of the dire predictions about the disease spreading to the general population ever came to pass. Heterosexual spread was nonexistent. Even prostitutes who engaged in frequent sexual activity with a large number of people   remained free of the disease except for a some of those who also used intravenous drugs. A number of leading scientists such as Peter Duesberg wrote articles questioning the theory linking HIV to AIDS. These scientists were shunned and ostracized from the respectable academic community for their heresy. These attitudes continue to this day and those that blame lifestyle factors and/or question the HIV/AIDS nexus are accused of homophobia and labeled as AIDS or HIV “deniers”. Sound familiar?


Note to commenters: My purpose here is not to start and endless string of debate on the subject of AIDS and HIV where many unresolved questions remain. Rather it is simply to point out the tragic irony that victims (and potential future victims) of this horrible disease are denied the possible benefits of thorough epidemiological investigation in one of the rare instances that it might have been useful. And denied for reasons that have nothing to do with science. The ultimate irony is that many of these selective epidemiology deniers are the same people that enthusiastically apply these methods of investigation in areas where they never have and never will have any success.


3 responses to “The Irony of Selective Epidemiology

  1. Michael Fumento addressed heterosexual AIDS in his book “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”. It was virologists and public-health bureaucrats who manufactured the myth of heterosexual AIDS, not the epidemiologists whose data were crystal-clear.

  2. Correct but beside the point. The point being that many who pushed for acceptance of epidemiological evidence for causation in heart disease and cancer ignored or rejected the epidemiological evidence for AIDS.

  3. gonewiththewind

    Cancer is many things. It is genetic and it caused by environmental factors. There is also likely cases where there is a genetic predispostition that tends to need a envronmental factor to kick start it. So the same thing that might lead to cancer in one person has no effect on another person. It seems to be a crap shoot, bad luck, chance.

    Fixing/curing/stopping cancer seems to fall into two categories: Those cancers which can be excised, burned or poisoned and those where these treatments have little effect on the outcome.

    We like to think we can prevent cancer and some cancers (smokers cancer and skin cncer from sun exposure) can be prevented, but most cannot. We like to think we have made huge advances in treating/curing/ending cancers but we really haven’t. Trillions spent on research and treatment and almost nothing to show for it. Some small advances in the “treatable” cancers and some statistical data showing longer survival times for the “untreatable” (Oh we do indeed treat them but with no success) cancers.

    We lost the war on cancerand there is no evidence that will change in the future. Without exception every breakthrough every highly publicized promising treatment has been a faliure. 50 years ago if you got smokers lung cancer it was a death sentence, period. Today the situation is identical.

    Whatever we are doing to find a “cure” is wrong and we should consider something different.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s